Unification of gravity, gauge fields, and Higgs bosons

[MTd2]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.4866

Unification of gravity, gauge fields, and Higgs bosons

A. Garrett Lisi, Lee Smolin, Simone Speziale
(Submitted on 27 Apr 2010)
We consider a diffeomorphism invariant theory of a gauge field valued in a Lie algebra that breaks spontaneously to the direct sum of the spacetime Lorentz algebra, a Yang-Mills algebra, and their complement. Beginning with a fully gauge invariant action -- an extension of the Plebanski action for general relativity -- we recover the action for gravity, Yang-Mills, and Higgs fields. The low-energy coupling constants, obtained after symmetry breaking, are all functions of the single parameter present in the initial action and the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs.

*************

WOOT!

 

[marcus]

Well you beat me by one minute in posting about this, MTd2. When I saw you had posted already I added a comment to mine that it could be merged or deleted. Yours can be the thread on this topic. I am not sure how this is going to work out. Speziale has a permanent faculty position in Rovelli's group at Marseille Luminy campus, I think. That group rarely makes a wrong move. Most of what they do at Luminy eventually becomes mainstream.

Speziale was also postdoc at Perimeter with Smolin for a number of years before he went to Marseille.

This is not yet quantum gravity, I think. I think the geometry is still classical, like GR. that is already fine, but it is not QG. Anybody correct me if I'm wrong please. Just saw this.
So then I want to judge the chances of successful quantization of the underlying geometry. It stands out to me that Speziale is in the team. But this is very new and I don't have any real grasp of what is going on. Maybe some other people will comment.

 

[negru]

Isn't this not completely new?
"The Plebanski action extended to a unification of gravity and Yang-Mills theory"
http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0977

 

[qsa]

Isn't this not completely new?
"The Plebanski action extended to a unification of gravity and Yang-Mills theory"
http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0977

THANKS for the reference by Smolin.

here is a line from that

"The proposal of matter as the ends of long distance links needs more development."

and here is a quote from my posting
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2665832#post2665832


"In this model, nature comes about in such an automatic way. Pick a line and throw two random numbers. One denotes the position and the other length of pieces of lines, then you get a free particle which all of QM and QFT books have the opening in it. The particle exists in all space with the same probability. Next add constraint with the simplest expression and you get your particle in a box in 1D. Add the same constraint for the second axis just after the first one; you get the 2D picture (you can go to N). Also, the constraints splits the throws into two set of lines, one represent the momentum energy (these lines are confined to inside of the particle) and the second, get ready, represent mass and the lines can go to the end of the universe and that is how gravity gets created, that is when these lines interact with other lines of other particles (with a very simple expression again amounting to logic)! When particles come close and touch each other they interact with the internal lines and that is your get the other forces i.e. EM."


and another post of mine

"ok, susskind does use light rays, but he uses light rays to represent a parton(particle) on the screen. Not far enough. I propose a ray from every point in space-time to every other point in space-time. The number of connections(two way) per two points(A,B) will represent the entropy(information) that passes between those two points. the entropy at those points is related to the probability of finding a particle at those points. The entropy at A will affect B and vis=versa in such way to change their probabilities(entropies) to indicate attraction(by lowering the pobabilities at those points, forcing an increase in probabilties in the neighbouring points). This technique works for all forces"

All these statement and twister theory tells you we are revolving around the same idea which seems to be fundamental. i.e. rays from every point to every point.

http://www.qsa.netne.net

 

[ordered_chaos]

Woot, there are some power-players here!

Glad to see Lisi and Smolin collaborating.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you QSA, a very enlightening post. QSA, does your theory include the math behind everything you just wrote? I'm not sure where the automata would fit in, but I'll go over your webpage later.

 

[apeiron]

The notion that a unification of forces yields a unification of the Higgs field and the metric, with both playing a role in symmetry breaking, is not new [5], but it is cleanly realized here.
p10 - http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.4866v1.pdf

Is this arguing towards a solution to the hierarchy problem - the gap between gravity and Higgs disunification can be calculated from some scaling factor revealed by the Higgs being a subset of the greater original symmetry?

I mean from the size of the fragment you can read off the scale at which the break appears?

 

[negru]

Sorry for saying this, but having Lisi there will raise some eyebrows. I mean his last extremely simple theory was pretty bad..and actually citing it here is even worse. If you're writing the breakthrough unification paper you don't cite bogus theories, really now.

Anyway, I'm not holding my breath on this one. These ideas are at least 3 years old, no one picked up on them, hard to believe they have something too big here which everyone else missed.

 

[qsa]

Woot, there are some power-players here!

Glad to see Lisi and Smolin collaborating.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you QSA, a very enlightening post. QSA, does your theory include the math behind everything you just wrote? I'm not sure where the automata would fit in, but I'll go over your webpage later.

The automata word I use is indicative(like a buzz word) and not exact. The nice thing about my idea is that like verlinde's (even better) it is a high school math implemented in a computer program, it is a simulation. From what I gather, of all the methods of physics simulations(CDT,latice QCD..) have produced very nice results. As a matter of fact, I have spent the last two weeks calculating all kinds of interactions, it is so simple, just add up the random lines (interpreted as energy). A strange feature I discovered which I have to really make sure of, is that between two particle the force switches from repulsive to attractive at certain distances depending on their masses. In my site(fig 2) I show how I get the 1s hydrogen just from such interaction. I hope in a week's time I publish this idea with all of the simulations results (many of which I have not said anything about). Time is my next problem, as far as I could see, it looks easy. I shall derive it as a consequense of interactions.

 

[qsa]

Sorry for saying this, but having Lisi there will raise some eyebrows. I mean his last extremely simple theory was pretty bad..and actually citing it here is even worse. If you're writing the breakthrough unification paper you don't cite bogus theories, really now.

Anyway, I'm not holding my breath on this one. These ideas are at least 3 years old, no one picked up on them, hard to believe they have something too big here which everyone else missed.

In a way you are right. On the other hand, they are doing their best inching toward the right concept. When you are in a maze you could smell the cheese and be very far a way from getting it.

 

[ordered_chaos]

I shall derive it as a consequense of interactions.

Hmm, i like that. My personal opinion is only when an observer interacts with a line and has there own biased constraints do you get a result that is valid for the current moment. Other then that you only have probabilities for future past, it's when you interact with things now will you get an accurate but only half measurement (either momentum or position). So time is not such a solid concept but really formed from the dynamics of observers.

 

[Finbar]

I like these theories similar ideas are being put forward by Krasnov and Gomez. The problem is that they are power counting non-renormalisable. Maybe they are asymptotically safe other wise they need some kind of UV completion.

 

[MTd2]

Well, just now I read that paper. Was it only me that thought that paper was just an algebraic exercise with very little explanation? I am totally lost on that paper